ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2025
Self-gated free-running 5D whole-heart MRI using blind source separation for automated cardiac motion extraction.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dynamic Mode Decomposition (DMD) for Low-Latency Real-Time Cardiac MRI.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2026Article
- Monitoring carotid arterial stiffness using non-contrast-enhanced 4D MR angiography.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- Study Protocol for HeartMagic: A Prospective Observational Cohort Characterizing Subtypes of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- Self-gated free-running 5D whole-heart MRI using blind source separation for automated cardiac motion extraction.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2025Article
- Cardiac function assessment with deep-learning-based automatic segmentation of free-running four-dimensional whole-heart cardiovascular magnetic resonance.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic ResonanceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare two blind source separation (BSS) techniques to principal component analysis and the electrocardiogram for the identification of cardiac triggers in self-gated free-running 5D whole-heart MRI. To ascertain the precision and robustness of the techniques, they were compared in three different noise and contrast regimes.
methodsThe repeated superior-inferior (SI) projections of a 3D radial trajectory were used to extract the physiological signals in three cardiac MRI cohorts: (1) 9 healthy volunteers without contrast agent injection at 1.5T, (2) 30 ferumoxytol-injected congenital heart disease patients at 1.5T, and (3) 12 gadobutrol-injected patients with suspected coronary artery disease at 3T. Self-gated cardiac triggers were extracted with the three algorithms (principal component analysis [PCA], second-order blind identification [SOBI], and independent component analysis [ICA]) and the difference with the electrocardiogram triggers was calculated. PCA and SOBI triggers were retained for image reconstruction. The image sharpness was ascertained on whole-heart 5D images obtained with PCA and SOBI and compared among the three cohorts.
resultsSOBI resulted in smaller trigger differences in Cohorts 1 and 3 compared to PCA (p < 0.01) and in all cohorts compared to ICA (p < 0.04). In Cohorts 1 and 3, the sharpness increased significantly in the reconstructed images when using SOBI instead of PCA (p < 0.03), but not in Cohort 2 (p = 0.4).
conclusionWe have shown that SOBI results in more precisely extracted self-gated triggers than PCA and ICA. The validation across three diverse cohorts demonstrates the robustness of the method against acquisition variability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.